1. Through instant revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C., the petitioner has called in question the concurrent judgments dated 17.3.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge-II/Judge Family Court, Karak and that of learned District Judge, Karak dated 10.11.2016 whereby the former dismissed suit of the petitioner while the latter upheld the same.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/defendant in absence of petitioner/plaintiff has taken away Rs, 333,000/- cash amount and 06 Tolas gold ornament to the house of her parents with the collusion of her brother namely Barhan-ud-Din.
3. 3.Notice was issued to the respondent/defendant by the learned trial Court who appeared and contested the suit by filing written reply, raising therein factual and legal grounds.. The learned trial Court framed five issues including the relief. After recording of pro and contra evidence, the learned trial heard arguments of both the parties and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 17.3.2015. Aggrieved from the said judgment, the petitioner preferred civil appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Karak, which met the same fate. Hence the instant revision petition.
4. 4.Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner heard and available record perused.
5. 5.The petitioner alleged in his plaint that the respondent who is his wife has misappropriated/taken away 06 Tolas gold and Rs, 333,000/- in cash. To prove his contention, the petitioner has failed to produce any independent and reliable evidence. So far as the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 are concerned, their statements being close relatives of the petitioner and interested witnesses are not reliable in the eyes of law. As PW-1 is father of the petitioner who during cross-examination has admitted that Gulab and others were sent for the re-union of the respondent with the petitioner but said Gulab and others were not informed about taking away of 06 tolas gold ornaments and cash amount of Rs, 333,000/- by the respondent from their house.
6. Similarly PW-2 is happens to be uncle of the petitioner who during cross-examination stated that he visited the house of father of the respondent many times to take back the respondent to the house of the petitioner but he neither talked to the respondent nor her father about gold ornaments and cash amount.
7. 6.So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court has treated purely civil case of the petitioner as family Court case and thus has failed to exercise the jurisdiction in accordance with law, however, this contention of the learned counsel is not sustainable as the trial was conducted by the trial Court under the C.P.C. In that view of the matter, the solitary mis-description in the judgment i,e, where he described himself as Judge Family Court too beside civil Judge, would be without effect upon the legality of the trial. It would be a mis- description which was demonstrably incorrect, falling within the maxim falsa demonstration non nocet. It would therefore, be without effect upon the validity of the proceedings. Wisdom is derived from the case titled "Pio Gul vs. The State" (PLD 1960 S.0 (Pak) 307).
8. 7.Both the learned subordinate Courts after proper appraisal of evidence, produced by the parties rightly dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff.
8. The scope of revisionel jurisdiction is very limited in which the Court cannot set aside the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction nor it can upset the same eve; if on appreciation of evidence a different view can be formed unless these findings are shown patently illegal, without jurisdiction or the result of bare misreading and non-reading of material evidence, based on conjectural presumptions or erroneous assumption. No such infirmity has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned judgments, which may warrant interference of this Court. Reference, in this regard can be made to case titled, "Haji Muhammad, Saleem vs. Khuda Bakhsh" (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 315).
9. 9.For the reasons discussed above, the petition being meritless is hereby dismissed in limine.